The Episcopal Church offers a Model...[article]

[angli_fan]

The Episcopal Church offers a Model for How a Community Can Disagree and Yet Remain United Behind a Common Purpose

By The Very Reverend Todd M. Donatelli, Dean
The Cathedral of All Souls
Asheville, North Carolina

www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/dojustice/j148.html

[Canadian Phil]

Thanks for the letter. Of course, I've been struggling up here in the frozen wastes of the north (we just got snow up here in Toronto) with the same problem, but just a few things new to share.

I think I told about my wife's and my experience with a sermon by the Archbishop of our diocese at our church before the old board was defunct. Later that week, we found ourselves at synod and, of course, faced a similar problem in the same Archbishop's charge to the synod. It was, of course, much easier to set aside his comments, which were more direct than the previous Sunday, but that isn't why I'm mentioning it.

On the way back from the church, my wife suggested a possible idea of which we are still working out the implications. (Incidently, Sojourner, I think you anticipated it). She wondered out loud whether the way to deal with the problem is the same way that we, as pacifists, deal with the acceptance of 'just war' theory in the Anglican Church. That is, we can accept that the people who hold it are Christian in a real sense, even if we think, on this issue, they are wrong. That opens up the room to talk and even stay in communion, even when we strongly disagree with the position held by liberals in the diocese. The idea does seem to help us as we navigate this mess, although the question of whether to remain in formal communion remains, if the Anglican Church of Canada follows the same path as ECUSA. It is, at least, workable and we're wiliing to follow it up as much as possible.

Anyways, just a thought on where we are these rather troubled days. I do hope we can manage to hold on, partly because I think the ACC needs our voices and our prayers, but also because we chose this denomination and we're both reluctant to leave it.

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

Phil, I need to tell you that in my Church, we need the Phils of the world. Right now is very difficult for you, because you must decide whether or not North American Anglicanis has, or will, move beyond the pale. Do the recent GA decisions signify such a rending of the bond as to make it impossible for you to stay in communion?

I believe you stated in a post on the old board that the gay decisions undercut (my word and my interpretation) the concept of personal holiness. That may well be. But as I view the requirements of Christian living, I am beginning to sense an almost Hegelian dichotomy. For discipleship requres more than personal holiness. It requires the same rigor to living out a social ethic, which, from my perspective, seems to have been relegated to the "yes, but" file.

The injunctions to social holiness, particularly those found in Matthew, seem, in my opinion, to be treated with much the same manipulations by conservatives as personal sexual appear to be by liberals. Especially in the United States, the captivity of the Church by government seems to be as strong as the asserted conforming to society charge against liberals. The injunctions about forgiving, going the extra mile, and all that the beatitudes seem to require are glossed over, short changed, and even laughed at in some circles. And, yet, I see very few individuals, myself included, who would break communion because our Church has failed miserably to come out from under the chains of the state, or to challenge Christians to lay what they have before God and become stewards of what is his. I see very little regard for taking the love of God to the higways and hedges and compelling the lost to come in. I see little of the requirements for hospitality.

Sexual sins, or the perception thereof, require the supplicant to what "I" have done; social sins requre that I pray for what "we" have left undone. These appear to be equal sides of the same coin. These sins seem to have a degree of symmetry. And, again, while I see those who cannot countenace problems of sexual sin leaving the Church, I frankly see no one particularly exercised about being in a community in which a major part of discipleship is relegated to "too hard."

Sorry for the rant!

[Canadian Phil]

Sojourner;

I appeciate your comments and I'm grateful for them. I'm not sure if the particular theological reformulation that my wife suggested (who, as I've frequently said, is a better theologian than I am. Must be all that training) is enough to keep us in the ACC if worse came to worse, but it is an important principle in deciding how to relate to our liberal brethren. It means we can still disagree and debate, but without compromising our own position. That middle ground is hard to find in this debate.

Just a couple comments on your comments. First, I agree that we have to pay attention to social holiness as much as personal (I'll take that term next)holiness. Some conservatives do ignore this, but they do this at their peril. Just reading the prophets should innoculate them for this particular vice, but sometimes that reading is rather sketchy. Yet, I would also point out that many conservatives do, in fact, pay considerable attention to social justice. In fact, evangelicals have a long and honourable history in this area, form abolition to poor relief to civil rights. I can put my fingers fairly quickly on conservative evangelical groups which do a lot of very good work, even among the homosexual community (i.e. AIDS support groups where the focus is on helping the sick). So, that work is being done among conservatives as well.

Second, I agree that that a distinction has been made in our church between personal and social holiness, but I am actually not arguing for that distinction. In fact, I totally reject the idea that they can be separated or, in fact, that there is any such thing as 'personal' holiness distinct from social holiness. They are one and the same. The reason they are is that holiness does not reside in actions, but rather in doing the call of God. In that sense, God has to be first and foremost in any call for holiness, because only God is holy and, after all, he created us. As a result, I don't think we can cordon off sexuality as merely an issue about personal holiness, but, instead, since it is a concern for God that we live lives that are consistent to his Gospel and his Word, it is a concern for all Christians. I'm not saying that we have to become the sex-Gestapo for our Church members, but rather that the idea that someone's sexuality is their own, without reference to God and the community, is just wrong. Our culture encourages the idea that sexuality is private, but I am quite deliberately arguing that this leads to a cordoning off of sexuality so that it can and frequently does not reflect gospel values. This is not only in homosexuality, but in divorce and in marriage. I do feel the force of the criticism that you (Sojourner) raise about the hypocrisy of objecting to homosexuality and not protesting against divorce. I personally agree because our rate of divorce is suggesting to me that we placing God in our marital relationships either. If God were there, the fruits of the spirit would be there for both husband and wife, and we wouldn't have divorce because there would be nothing to divorce over. If the fruits of the Spirit were there, could you hit your wife? Or, seek out an affair? Or stop talking and interacting? No.

Anyways, just some thoughts.

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

Thanks for the reply. As a quick reply, I recognize that there are conservatives who have been evidenced strong obedience to social justice principles. (Just, as I am sure, there are persons who interpret Christianity from a very liberal positon who are bothered by fashionable interpretations of sexual activities). So my critique was not all inclusive. However, Phil, my experience in the USA is that many conservatives do as much damage to the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed by there cavalier misreading of the communal aspects of the Kingdom, and by ignoring, minimizing or disregarding some of very clear mandates of the Prophetic Word. So much of what is going on reminds me of "whited sepulchres." I genuinely believe that most of the reaction to THE subject is motivated as much by embarassment as by scriptural obedience. After all, don't ask, don't tell was just fine. But now that the errant daughter has returned home with a bun in the oven, we want to react with "What will the neighbors think?' It may be that the Church can stand any type of rot, just so no one outside the family knows about it.

What all this says to me is that we are all sinners, that we all fall short of the mark, and that we all force scripture into what we want it to be. And yet, I am not sure that most of this do this by design. I am not sure that most of us consciously choose disobedience.

Anyway, with all my pontificating, I'll think good thoughts of you tomorrow when I engage in the State sponsored sin of gluttony, wastage and overkill as I stuff myself with turkey, dressing, cranberry sauce, et. al. Lord, there's more than enough sin to go around!

[Canadian Phil]

Yes, I know there is that particular heresy among conservatives (yes, I'm using that word quite deliberately), but a lot of that is the alliance between the Christian Right and Neo-Cons. Anytime we get into alliances like that, we are constantly driven into positions that are not consistent with Gospel Values. Witness also the misuse of 'just war' theory by the Bush Administration. I don't even agree with that theory and I'm incenses at how it has become just war while remaining unjust, if you get my drift.

Have a good Thanksgiving (even if it is at a non-canonical time) and enjoy the celebration of God's bounty. Sometimes celebration is also from God.

Peace,
Phil